Case Note & Summary
The case involved two civil appeals challenging the judgment in Election Petitions nos. 1 and 2 of 2002, where the appellants were elected to the Legislative Assembly of Goa but were alleged to be holding an office of profit at the time of their elections. The appellant in C.A. No. 3578/05 was the Chairman of the Goa Khadi and Village Industries Board, while the appellant in C.A. No. 3579/05 was the Chairman of the Goa State Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes Finance & Development Corporation Ltd. The election petitions were filed by unsuccessful candidates claiming that the appellants were ineligible to contest due to their positions. The High Court ruled against the appellants, stating they held an office of profit and were disqualified. The appellants argued that they did not receive salary or allowances, relying on the Goa, Daman and Diu Members of Legislative Assembly [Removal of Disqualifications] Act, 1982, which they claimed exempted them from disqualification. However, the court found that the perquisites they received, including a chauffeur-driven car and other benefits, constituted an office of profit. The court also addressed the applicability of the 1982 Act, noting that the respondents contended it was not adopted by the State Legislature. The court ultimately dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision and leaving the question of the Act's adoption open for future consideration.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Disqualification due to Office of Profit - Appellants held office of profit at the time of election - Goa, Daman and Diu Members of Legislative Assembly [Removal of Disqualifications] Act, 1982 - Court held that the appellants were ineligible to contest elections as they were holding an office of profit, despite not receiving salary, due to the perquisites enjoyed and the provisions of the 1982 Act. (Paras 1-3) B) Legislative Assembly - Applicability of 1982 Act - Court examined whether the 1982 Act was applicable to the State of Goa - Court held that the appellants were not entitled to the protection of the Act, leaving the question of its adoption open for future cases. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants were disqualified from contesting elections due to holding an office of profit.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's ruling that the appellants were disqualified from contesting elections due to holding an office of profit.
Law Points
- Disqualification
- Office of Profit
- Legislative Assembly
- Election Petition
- Goa
- Daman and Diu Members of Legislative Assembly [Removal of Disqualifications] Act
- 1982
- Daman and Diu Khadi and Village Industries Board Rules
- 1967
